(05-28-2017, 10:07 AM)GI-Land Wrote: Just finished "Winter of the World" by Ken Follett.
It wasn't as good as the first book of the trilogy in the beginning imo, but became better, when it finally got to the time before and during WW2.
As of the end of WW2 and the time afterwards, I thought it became worse again unfortunately, because he suddenly begun skipping a few historic bits, I'd have considered as important and also interesting. Plus even though he tried to be quite neutral throughout the book, you could clearly see his Western point of views towards the end :/
All in all, it was interesting, but a bit worse than the first book. Inconsistencies he had in the first book, weren't vanished in the second one.

Now I'll read his third book too and hope, he will make the most out of it (Although I already saw in the outlook at the end of "Winter of the World", that he again skipped several years, like he did between the first and the second book. That's also somehow a thing I don't like).

I've only read one Ken Follett book, being The Pillars of the Earth , which I found to be engaging and yet oddly disappointing at the same time.  I'm picky about my historical fiction, it seems and if they aren't helping to convince me that the past truly is 'another country' (preferably one I can book a flight to), then I feel like it's a wasted opportunity.  I had the same feeling about Edward Rutherford's London, A Novel, although I find myself wanting to read his Sarum nevertheless...